No, it's ok that Lincoln did it because of its own value. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the confederates and neo confederates. Lincoln didn't say one thing while his hands did another- like Davis. Who came up with this rule that this country can't employ such means to put down a violent insurrection? I don't blame Lincoln, I blame the aggression of the south for putting us in the position.

For "putting us in the Position"? So that would make you the oldest survivor
I have known.

The Confederates had two stars in their flag for Kentucky and Missouri; they were committed to installing the shadow governments, as seen in Braxton Bragg's invasion of Kentucky.

And the Maryland situation wasn't exactly the same; that was the national government acting to maintain control of it's own territory, especially as losing Maryland would have meant losing DC. Regardless, it's not clear that Maryland would have voted for secession even if Lincoln didn't break up the possibility of the secession convention; there was no clear majority in favor of secession.

Of course, I don't know why you brought up Maryland; I mentioned Kentucky and Missouri as two clear examples of the Confederacy's aggression. Given secessionist activity in Maryland was posing an immediate threat to D.C. and it's communications, it was a matter of national defense for Lincoln to maintain control in the Baltimore area.

I brought up Maryland because Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, without Congress, had civilians and pro-Confederate leaders arrested, ignored a writ granted by a chief justice of the Supreme court and made Congress authorize his actions after the fact, all in the name of national defense. Lincoln believed he could do anything he wanted. He believed he could use his on interpretation of the Constitution to justify his actions.

Quote:

"The resolutions promise to support me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress the rebellion; and I have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue, that certain military arrests and proceedings following them, for which I am ultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. I think they are not."

Its all about what he thinks, what he believed. He made no apologies for arresting almost 14,000 civilians in the North.

Quote:

"By the third resolution the meeting indicated their opinion that military arrests may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actually; exists; but that such arrests are unconstitutional in localities where rebellion, or insurrection, does not actually exist. They insist that such arrests shall not be made "outside of the lines of necessary military occupation, and the scenes of insurrection." In asmuch, however, as the constitution itself makes no such distinction, I am unable to believe that there is any such constitutional distinction. I concede that the class of arrests complained of, can be constitutional only when, in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public safety may require them; and I insist that in such cases, they are constitutional wherever the public safety does require them"

The last few pages of this thread are really just veiled or even obvious attempts to attack Lee's character just as Pryor and Faust have done in their works. Its simply just a revisionist movement in what amounts to almost an all out war on anything "Lost Cause". If the idea that Lee was a great Christian man, a great general, and a man of impeccable character is a "myth". Then I believe in that "myth" wholeheartedly.

I brought up Maryland because Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus

Which is legal under the Constitution in time of rebellion. Did Lincoln act hastily? Perhaps, but Congress wasn't in session and there seemed to be an imminent national crisis at hand. We have the benefit of hindsight in shaking a finger at Lincoln for taking firm measures in Maryland; Lost Causers and other such revisionists would do well to take historical context into account before blithely condemning anyone who doesn't fit into their narrative as evil. I personally don't approve of many of Lincoln's domestic actions taken in the name of national security; but there's nothing in the record to suggest that Lincoln was motivated by anything but genuine concern for preserving the nation and the Constitution.

Quote:

and made Congress authorize his actions after the fact

How exactly did he make Congress do that? Are you unable to even comprehend the idea that they genuinely approved?

Quote:

Lincoln believed he could do anything he wanted.

Exactly the type of hyperbolic characterization necessary in the Lost Cause narrative to convince everyone that Lincoln was some sort of sadistic tyrant. It would be more accurate to say Lincoln believed he was justified in taking broad action in defending the Constitution from an extra-constitutional threat. Lincoln certainly didn't believe he could do anything he wanted, and he understood presidential authority had it's limits; witness his careful buildup to the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, this is all unrelated to the topic of Confederate military aggression, the subject of my original reference to Kentucky and Missouri, which I notice you've now dropped without so much as a whimper since the facts are clear. Goalpost shifting is rarely the sign of a successful argument.

You're engaging in far worse character assassination against Lincoln than anything anyone has said about Lee in this thread.

Which is legal under the Constitution in time of rebellion. Did Lincoln act hastily? Perhaps, but Congress wasn't in session and there seemed to be an imminent national crisis at hand. We have the benefit of hindsight in shaking a finger at Lincoln for taking firm measures in Maryland; Lost Causers and other such revisionists would do well to take historical context into account before blithely condemning anyone who doesn't fit into their narrative as evil. I personally don't approve of many of Lincoln's domestic actions taken in the name of national security; but there's nothing in the record to suggest that Lincoln was motivated by anything but genuine concern for preserving the nation and the Constitution.

How exactly did he make Congress do that? Are you unable to even comprehend the idea that they genuinely approved?

Exactly the type of hyperbolic characterization necessary in the Lost Cause narrative to convince everyone that Lincoln was some sort of sadistic tyrant. It would be more accurate to say Lincoln believed he was justified in taking broad action in defending the Constitution from an extra-constitutional threat. Lincoln certainly didn't believe he could do anything he wanted, and he understood presidential authority had it's limits; witness his careful buildup to the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, this is all unrelated to the topic of Confederate military aggression, the subject of my original reference to Kentucky and Missouri, which I notice you've now dropped without so much as a whimper since the facts are clear. Goalpost shifting is rarely the sign of a successful argument.

You're engaging in far worse character assassination against Lincoln than anything anyone has said about Lee in this thread.

Viper, calm down now!! Lincoln DID get everything he wanted except for the bullet!!

Viper, calm down now!! Lincoln DID get everything he wanted except for the bullet!!

Come on, he addressed your points, he didn't fly off the handle. Can we discuss this issue without trying to unfairly talk down to each other?

If people want to believe Lee was a good Christian man, I can't argue with them. My problem, though, is that if he was so great, why all the lies? Almost everything I've read about him is untrue. So many apocrypal stories. Lee gave his slaves freedom before the war, out of the kindness of his own heart. That he fought out of duty to VA, while in reality, he tried "sit the war out." etc.

That he fought out of duty to VA, while in reality, he tried "sit the war out." etc.

Actually, in Alan T. Nolan's Lee Considered, he makes a pretty compelling case that Lee was planning on accepting command of Virginia's forces even before the secession actually happened, although he disingenuously told several others that he just wanted to go back to his farm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopeforus

Viper, calm down now!! Lincoln DID get everything he wanted except for the bullet!!

If I'm the one who needs to calm down, why is it that I used zero exclamation marks in 281 words as compared to four in fourteen for yourself? The post isn't even a response to anything I said...